Page 1 of 103
Posted on October 1 at 10:19 a.m.
Sensible article with no hype but rational arguments. However, here is a point that bothers me.
"In regulating oil drilling, we should treat problems in the same way that we treat manufacturing flaws in cars. When problems are discovered, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration orders car makers to fix the problems and, if necessary, recall and retrofit cars that have been sold."
Often oil drilling problems are discovered AFTER they have done irreversible damage (often years later, see well casings problems, how much damage have they done that we don't know about), and the damage is done to entities that are required for life, not only humans, but for all other creatures and to vegetation. I would far rather have uncontaminated life forms, than say, the billions of dollars that oil companies have to pay in compensation for damage, e.g. to the gulf and other disaster areas.
Cars cannot be equated to life forms. The damage a fault in a car causes, affects a very, very small portion of the population, and it is transitory. Damage by the oil industry in many cases, lasts for decades.
I can see both the pluses and minuses of Measure P. I wish there were a way for users of petroleum locally, to offset any losses (will there be losses?) from Measure P, by cutting down use. Sometimes, we have to take our medicine that we refuse to take, unless it is forced on us by natural means - e.g. the drought in California has forced people to use less water in order to survive.
Bicycles not cars; buses not cars; walking not cars; shared drives not solo drives. No wasted trips - make one car trip for all needs on one day. I once lived next to a neighbor who went in and out of home, something like half a dozen times on a Saturday. Were all those trips necessary? Or were they just overindulgence, like green lawns in a drought area? What about those huge gas-guzzling trucks that are used for short city trips? The incentives for being sensible are not in the short-term future, but in the long-term future. Is Measure P a sensible incentive in the absence of even higher temperatures to make a choice before that choice is imposed on us by nature - i.e. if Measure P does actually cause any supply limits?
On The Misguided Measure P
Posted on September 29 at 10:52 a.m.
And of course, another thread of groundless nonsense parroted away by people who do not know that it was Farnk Luntz, Republican adviser, who in a memo to George Bush said the following:
"We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation."
The ignorance of those who do not know what they are talking about, or who do not have a desire to know what they are talking about, is making these threads an Orwellian nightmare. The Luntz recommendations: "We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects." seem to have worked because their phrases of deception flood the message boards all over the country.
Repeat: FRANK LUNTZ, REPUBLICAN, stated the following: It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation."
Yep, sulphur changes to carbon, scientists do not know what they are talking about, the list of inanity and stupidity, goes on and on and on.
On Global Warming Soaks Up Attention
Posted on September 28 at 2:49 p.m.
"Preserving the rainwater that Goleta does get and directing it to the groundwater supply would also be a priority of his" .
Yes, HUGE priority. Then the Goleta Slough mouth would not have to be opened each year.
Water stored as groundwater has a number of advantages - including lack of evaporation. However, it should not be close to any possible contamination sources.
On Goleta Water District Issues Debated
Posted on September 28 at 10:05 a.m.
Now for the science:
"The amount of sulphur dioxide (which transmutes to carbon dioxide) emitted yearly from undersea vcanix activity is measured at more than 2000x the total carbon dioxide released by humans each year. Our contribution is minuscule." Your comment.
1) Sulphur dioxide transmutes to carbon dioxide?? Please tell me by which magical trick that happens. I have never encountered that chemical reaction before. I have never heard of sulphur changing into carbon.
2) The action of sulphur dixoide in the atmosphere is opposite of that of carbon dioxide. Sulphur dioxide helps to cool the planet; carbon dioxide helps to heat the planet.
"Volcanoes releasing sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere are the reason behind the temperature not rising as high as expected between years 2000 and 2010, according to a new study. Ryan Neely, lead author of the study, said that sulfur dioxide emissions rise up to some 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere. Here, the gas reacts with other compounds in the aerosol and forms sulfuric acid and water, which later fall back to earth. These water particles reflect sunlight and cool the earth. These aerosols have compensated for nearly 25 percent of greenhouse emissions, Neely said."
From whatever source you obtained the information in your comment quoted above, that source is chemically illiterate - and the fact that you repeated it here, says a lot about your lack of knowledge about chemistry and cc.
On Climate Change in the Air
Posted on September 28 at 9:41 a.m.
"The only reason lib-dems and greens hold onto this climate change stuff is to support a reason for us to rearrange our economy's around a socialist model of big government control and more central planning and spending."
Patently false. Government was heavily involved in supporting the oil industry for decades (socialist?). Government has been involved in some of the major technical advances that has resulted in this country being way ahead of other countries. Think internet, oil industry, farming industry, NASA, NOAA, space exploration, Hubble Telescope, etc. And these technologies have been pursued no matter whether the govt was democratic or republican.
And instead of the government promoting and subsidizing oil exploration as they have done for decades, how different is that from them subsidizing renewable energy. I had an earlier post with facts and figures that indicated that the oil industry has been supported by tax dollars to the tune of hundred of billions of dollars over decades. In fact, if it were not for "socialized" price manipulation, we would be paying far more at the gas pump than we are now. The renewable energy sector is selling product in as much a capitalistic mode as the gas industry did, and there are plenty of people making money from renewables and there are lots of jobs.
Your socialism claims are hog-wash. (There is more on that topic - e.g. how in this country we have privatized the profits and socialized the losses, where the government has bailed out industries that have failed, thus screwing the taxpayers twice.)
I would counter your claims with the following statistics - 55% of all scientists claim to be democrats, just 7% claim to be republicans. Hence, I would suggest that libs/dems/greens support CC is because they are scientists and understand the science - which you obviously do not. And btw, many businesses who are neither left or right but generally both, have woken up to CC, e.g. the Department of Defense, and the US Navy.
Here are two links for you:
Republican Meteorologist & Entrepreneur: Debating Cause of Climate Change is Moral and Scientific Equivalent of Debating Gravityhttp://profmandia.wordpress.com/2014/...
Posted on September 27 at 4:19 p.m.
[quote]The potentially lethal impact of DDT on birds was first noted in the late 1950s when spraying to control the beetles that carry Dutch elm disease led to a slaughter of robins in Michigan and elsewhere. Researchers discovered that earthworms were accumulating the persistent pesticide and that the robins eating them were being poisoned. Other birds fell victim, too. Gradually, thanks in no small part to Carson's book, gigantic "broadcast spray" programs were brought under control.
"Bioconcentration" of pesticides in birds high on food chains occurs not only because there is usually reduced biomass at each step in those chains, but also because predatory birds tend to live a long time. They may take in only a little DDT per day, but they keep most of what they get, and they live many days.
The insidious aspect of this phenomenon is that large concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons do not usually kill the bird outright. Rather, DDT and its relatives alter the bird's calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells. Instead of eggs, heavily DDT-infested Brown Pelicans and Bald Eagles tend to find omelets in their nests, since the eggshells are unable to support the weight of the incubating bird.
Shell-thinning resulted in the decimation of the Brown Pelican populations in much of North America and the extermination the Peregrine Falcon in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada. Shell-thinning caused lesser declines in populations of Golden and Bald Eagles and White Pelicans, among others. Similar declines took place in the British Isles. Fortunately, the cause of the breeding failures was identified in time, and the use of DDT was banned almost totally in the United States in 1972.
The reduced bird populations started to recover quickly thereafter, with species as different as ospreys and robins returning to the pre-DDT levels of breeding success in a decade or less. Furthermore, attempts to reestablish the peregrine in the eastern United States using captive-reared birds show considerable signs of success. Brown Pelican populations have now recovered to the extent that the species no longer warrants endangered status except in California. The banning of DDT has helped to create other pesticide problems, however. The newer organophosphate pesticides that to a degree have replaced organochlorines, such as parathion and TEPP (tetraethyl pyrophosphate), are less persistent so they do not accumulate in food chains. They are, nonetheless, highly toxic. Parathion applied to winter wheat, for instance, killed some 1,600 waterfowl, mostly Canada Geese, in the Texas panhandle in 1981.
You choose your sources, I choose mine.
On Fracking and Wastewater Dumping Exposed
Posted on September 27 at 4:13 p.m.
[quote]In response to growing accusations from both conservationists and conservatives that renewable energy sources like solar and wind kill too many birds, U.S. News and World Report has compiled data on which energy industries are responsible for the most bird deaths every year.
For each power source — wind, solar, oil and gas, nuclear, and coal — the data on bird deaths is gathered from different advocacy and industry groups, academic institutions, and government sources. Because estimates vary so widely on solar, wind, and oil, U.S. News included both low-range and high-range estimates for how many birds are killed by those electricity sources.
Either way, the results show that even with high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind.
Solar, Low Estimate --- 1,000Solar, High Estimate --- 28,000Wind, Low Estimate --- 140,000Wind, High Estimate --- 328,000Oil & Gas, Low Estimate --- 500,000Oil & Gas, High Estimate --- 1,000,000Coal --- 7,900,000Nuclear --- 330,000Cats --- 1.4 to 3.7 billion[end-of-quote]
A U.S. News and World Report chart shows estimates of how many birds are killed each year by different fuel sources.CREDIT: U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
Note "Either way, the results show that even with high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind."
Posted on September 27 at 4:53 a.m.
Great job, HTO and homeowners.
On Sewer Salvation for Rincon Point
Posted on September 27 at 4:48 a.m.
nativegeo - DDT had a far worse affect on coastal birds, especially Brown Pelicans, than natural seeps. Yes, there are some victims of natural seeps, but that is minor in comparison to oil spills, DDT, etc.
Thank you Eckerman, for an intelligent post.
And yes, all forms of energy kill birds. But, wind and solar are far less than all of the others, and a very small amount in comparison to cats.
nativegeo - you are a cherry picker, who likes to take things out of context to provide false information.
When you post a comparison of the impact of ALL forms energy, then you may have some credibility. Do the research, and don't cherry pick to in effect, lie.
Posted on September 27 at 4:40 a.m.
realitycheck88 - instead of blindly repeating the denier mantra, do a little more research on the subject of "no warming". That is only referring to surface temperatures.
"The Earth’s oceans have never been this far beyond the bounds of normal.New data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that Earth’s oceans reached a level last month not seen since humans have been keeping comprehensive records. Global ocean temperatures in August 2014 warmed to "the largest departure from average for any month on record" according to a NOAA statement. The previous record was set just two months ago, in June 2014."http://www.wired.com/2014/09/2014-pac...
Also, renewable energy is another business much like the oil industry. In fact there are more capitalist jobs in renewable than oil.